Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/11/2008 7:38:32 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Thanks Joe - I'm intrigued, any further details available about how it's being achieved?


One aspect is the appearance and meaning of the "airbase" symbol at a base. Currently in stock if you see the airbase symbol on an enemy base - it means there are aircraft there and if you do not see this symbol - it means there are no aircraft there. In AE this will not be the case. The appearance or non-appearance of the airbase symbol on an enemy base will be randomized.


Is the symbol appearance still randomized if you are reconning the base for several consecutive days and raise the DL (ie is it fixed until you stop recon) ???

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 451
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/11/2008 10:13:16 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Thanks Joe - I'm intrigued, any further details available about how it's being achieved?


One aspect is the appearance and meaning of the "airbase" symbol at a base. Currently in stock if you see the airbase symbol on an enemy base - it means there are aircraft there and if you do not see this symbol - it means there are no aircraft there. In AE this will not be the case. The appearance or non-appearance of the airbase symbol on an enemy base will be randomized.


Any chance of it being based on intel (which I guess already has a random factor) instead of just randomized?

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 452
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/12/2008 2:44:48 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Thanks Joe - I'm intrigued, any further details available about how it's being achieved?


One aspect is the appearance and meaning of the "airbase" symbol at a base. Currently in stock if you see the airbase symbol on an enemy base - it means there are aircraft there and if you do not see this symbol - it means there are no aircraft there. In AE this will not be the case. The appearance or non-appearance of the airbase symbol on an enemy base will be randomized.


Any chance of it being based on intel (which I guess already has a random factor) instead of just randomized?



Randomized means based on several factors but including die rolls. The current stock process includes one factor and no die rolls.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 453
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/12/2008 6:57:14 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Uhumm, ah, never mind.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 454
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/13/2008 10:20:31 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

When the arrivals of reinforcements show up on map they are briefly dsiplayed on the screen, then no additional record of them can be found. Will there be a record made?


Since at least the last patch (maybe before - I forget) there has been a record of them in the Operations Report. Just skip to the bottom if you don't want to read the rest of it. The unit arriving and the base of arrival are both given. It's been a great help. I'm sure it will be to you too, now that you know about it!

Maybe so, but I am patched to 1.8.0.6 and they do not show up on any of mine?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 455
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/13/2008 10:37:56 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Maybe so, but I am patched to 1.8.0.6 and they do not show up on any of mine?


I'm too tired now to think of any reason why you don't see this in the reports. I assume your game was started in the latest release.

Maybe after some sleep I can come up with why?

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 456
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/13/2008 11:00:09 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

When the arrivals of reinforcements show up on map they are briefly dsiplayed on the screen, then no additional record of them can be found. Will there be a record made?


Since at least the last patch (maybe before - I forget) there has been a record of them in the Operations Report. Just skip to the bottom if you don't want to read the rest of it. The unit arriving and the base of arrival are both given. It's been a great help. I'm sure it will be to you too, now that you know about it!

Maybe so, but I am patched to 1.8.0.6 and they do not show up on any of mine?


My experience is that it shows up irregularly.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 457
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/13/2008 2:27:42 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		I thought the arrivals were only displayed for nonPBEM games?

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 458
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/13/2008 9:42:27 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Yes arrivals are only shown in AI games. It has always been this way.

So .. a question :)

Will both players in Hotseat/PBEM games still see the same report?

I'm thinking yes since that be a major change, but would be nice to have it confirmed.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 459
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/14/2008 4:21:05 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		I posted an update to the team roster today - check it out to see the changes.



http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1640312

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 460
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/14/2008 7:12:03 PM   
BB57

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Beresford, SD
Status: offline 		Beta testers, that is great. I take that to mean you guys are progressing in the right direction and the day we will see AAR's is getting closer.

Keep up the good work.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 461
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/14/2008 8:42:38 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		At what point are Allied reinforcements 'cut off'  Are ships/units that were on their way but didn't arrive befor VJ-day included?  How about units which were earmarked for the Far East but never set off due to the end of the war (which may not arrive in Aug 1945)?

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to BB57)
Post #: 462
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/14/2008 9:25:56 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Thanks, Joe!

First general question has been asked elsewhere while waiting for you to arrive late to the party.

Any higher screen resolutions available? The game looks awesome on my 20 inch flat panel, but is stuck in the relatively tiny 1024x768 window.


No, changing the resolution was an "Engine" change and this bordered on a "start over again" rewrite, so this got axed fairly on. Note that AE is "not" to be considered the sometimes mentioned "WITP_II" in the sense that WITP_II usually means a complete re-write. For AE we are sticking with the original WITP engine(which means "UI" in witp code speak) but just adding piles and piles of enhancements to the game code. Some of us still have the idea of doing a WITP_II one day, but wanted to first crawl (do some patches) then walk (do this enhancement add-on pack) then run (do WITP_II).




Sorry I missed this post before bringing up the UI. I had had the sad feeling that the interface was intermingled with the rules engine. If we could maybe get a the buttons upsized some maybe that will help out until WiTP II.

If you ever need any ideas for that feel free to ask, I L O V E UI design.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 463
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 4:39:23 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		(Jumping back in after a bit of an absence)

In response to "How can you move the Dutch or PI troops a little without them leaving their own area" problem:

Can't this be solved with a movement rule?

Starting simply, make the hexside between Batavia and Teloekboeteng (bases across the straits in Java and Sumatra) a "ferry hex" and let DEI (or any other) units move from one base to the other with the appropriate delay and making it like a river crossing for combat.

Next level, let the bases in the DEI connect in some sort of a web. You couldn't go any base to any base but you could hop from island to island Palembang > Tobaoli > Kuching.

What you are doing is letting the Dutch (or anyone else) move selected short distances across water. Can the map/new hexside movement rules handle that fairly simply? You could "sneak past" an enemy that way, but only along a known web of movement. It might even make the enemy actually garrison his bases.

And the Dutch won't be able to evacuate to Karachi or Oz since the web doesn't extend out of the DEI.

If you want hand waving to explain it you are using "even smaller than barges" to get across.

Next level: Connect a lot of the Phillipines the same way.

You might connect Devonport (in Tasmania) and Melbourne.

Yes, you could cross from one island in the Phillipines to another without the need to marshall AKs and LSTs but on the other hand would you need those in many places on the map? Couldn't the PI units in '42 and the IJA units in 44 move a bit from island to island across short straits? They couldn't go hog wild. Just restrict the web to a few selected ports.

(and I am still playing and looking forward to the AE even though I haven't posted for a while)



< Message edited by Beezle -- 1/16/2008 4:42:52 AM >

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 464
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 6:46:12 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		The downside to that idea, Beezle, is that it negates the need for shipping after the original landing. Offensives agaisnt these archipelagos would be much less expensive, and it alllows for an ahistoric ease of transport.

IRL, the Japanese lost several ships to aerial attack (and many of the soldiers aboard) trying to reinforce their troops on Leyte (from Luzon). With the ferry solution in place, this won't happen.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 465
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 7:12:07 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The downside to that idea, Beezle, is that it negates the need for shipping after the original landing.


Shipping for reinforcement or shipping for supply? For reinforcement with other units you need to move another unit. To replace losses/for supply you need supplies on the other side of the strait.

Is it intrinsic to the map code that the "land supply oozing" (you still have that, right?) would go across the straits if land movement were possible across the straits? I.e. is the supply oozing a function of LCU movement points?

Remember this isn't Pearl to Midway supply. This is a little more than Hong Kong to Mainland. Supplies get into Hong Kong without using shipping to move them.

There are already small stretches of water (Singapore and Hong Kong, right?) that you can cross without in-game shipping. So limit it to nearby islands in the PI and DEI and not necessarily all of those.



< Message edited by Beezle -- 1/16/2008 7:14:26 AM >

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 466
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 7:56:29 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		(I bet you wish I'd go away for another couple of years <G>)

The game is an abstraction. You have to decide which you want to include and what you need to give up. You want to have some units limited to certain areas so the Dutch/Canadians/Australian home guard can't be used in an Allied Offensive too soon.

Australia and Canada and China and such are contiguous nets of land bases but the PI and DEI are archipelagoes. You would like to keep them in their respective archipelagoes but if you let them get on a ship the ship could go anywhere so each unit is stuck on the island where it starts.

Which is a bigger loss? Not being able to do air interdiction on troops crossing from Java to Sumatra or not letting the Dutch move between Java and Sumatra ?

Actually in the grand scale of the game the Dutch and Phillipine units shouldn't have much effect so keeping them from having much effect should be the main goal.

Which brings up interdiction of land movement (does this belong in the Land subforum?)

_Is_ their land movement interdiction? Narrow straits. railroad, highway or jungle trail a unit should take a more attrition moving from one hex to another than sitting in place if in reach of enemy air units. Is attrition affected by Air Balance or anything like that? If not is that something to consider and if so make the attrition for moving across narrow straits bad (maybe as bad as rail movement which should be pretty risky if the enemy has a positive air balance in the hex). The faster you move, the worse the attrition if in negative Air Balance.



< Message edited by Beezle -- 1/16/2008 8:03:07 AM >

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 467
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 8:31:07 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		It could be a good idea if limited to allowing DEI or PI units move around. But you also would get japanese or Americans laning at Davao and just steamroll through to Aparri.

IMHO you should allow shipping to carry units of their own command to & from ports within their own command.

Its up to the experts to code it!!!!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 468
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 12:26:48 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It could be a good idea if limited to allowing DEI or PI units move around. But you also would get japanese or Americans laning at Davao and just steamroll through to Aparri.


Indeed, which is why this is not a feasible approach, in my opinion. it eliminates the need to launch invasions, and use shipping, to get to the next connecting island.

If you could add code to the game to allow only "friendly" LCUs to make use of such connections it might work, but that isn't an option.

Andrew


< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 1/16/2008 3:02:18 PM >

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 469
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 2:48:46 PM   
Dutch_slith


Posts: 330
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		The Dutch didn't move any units on a grand scale! The smaller Battalions had to guard the airfields and oil installations. The main force on Java should stay there, almost all of the Dutch in the NEI lived on Java. No Dutch Commander ever, would move his troops away from them. The Dutch decided to make their last stand at Bandoeng (and to a lesser extent at Soerabaja).

They did however evacuated a Battalion from Sumatra to Java, and moved a Battalion from Biliton to Java (with Sloet van de Beele; sunk by Japanese aircraft).

Moving Battalions around is possible (just pay the pp), but should not occur to frequently.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 470
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 5:35:28 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

They did however evacuated a Battalion from Sumatra to Java, and moved a Battalion from Biliton to Java (with Sloet van de Beele; sunk by Japanese aircraft).


My reference says that was actually the Sloet van de _Beezle_.

I love dealing with odd units. Trying to make use of some AT unit or following the fortunes of a small detachment of one of the minor powers. But as I said, the most important thing is not to cause a problem with a larger aspect of the game just to have the fun of dealing with small corner of the action.

Oh well.



_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Dutch_slith)
Post #: 471
RE: Political Points - 1/16/2008 7:39:57 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Any chance that the Allied base symbols will be standardized such that the Japanese player won't be able to cogit out the Allied command structure on the basis of the symbol on an Allied base?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 472
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 11:15:17 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		1st US Army is in, Commonwealth X Corps is in and the three returning Indian Divs (4th/8th and 10th) arrive at Aden at their historical return dates.

If you want to launch Olympic the historical forces will be available.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

At what point are Allied reinforcements 'cut off'  Are ships/units that were on their way but didn't arrive befor VJ-day included?  How about units which were earmarked for the Far East but never set off due to the end of the war (which may not arrive in Aug 1945)?


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 473
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 2:56:14 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		What do people think about this idea? I wrote it in the Air thread but thought it might be cogent here as well.

IMO, AF damage models are too simplistic. No matter what size, 1-10, they are viewed as a single entity. I'd change it so that each numerical increment is a seperate entity (lvl 10 airfield has ten actual seperate airfields). As such, each lvl has to be knocked out, not just a single airfield that happens to have a size 10 capability. Added to this, the AF's levels do not get smacked from the highest to lowest, but can take damage simultaneously (ie Rabaul is a lvl 9 AF...after a B-17 strike the damage might look like this 1: 50% runway, 12% service; 2: 2% runway, 41% service) Knockout one level, it becomes a lvl 8 field until repaired, not a smouldering ruin as we have now.

This should make AFs much more resilient to both air and bombardment attacks.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 474
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 3:09:16 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Here are my thoughts from that thread.
______________________________________



Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 475
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 5:06:34 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline 		Should we discuss AI in this thread? Or is that not being touched in this version? Thanks!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 476
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 6:01:32 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here are my thoughts from that thread.
______________________________________



Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.


The actual base value should reflect base development. The potential base value should reflect maximum base size with balanced development (adequate dispersal and hardening of facilities). If the actual base value exceeds the potential base value, the additional facilities should be 'brittle'--expensive to add and maintain and easily damaged. The primary meaning should be the size of the air unit that can be supported, but the footprint of heavier aircraft should be greater. A bomber base usually needs fighter support, so the base size should reflect not just more aircraft but more types of aircraft.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 477
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 10:31:36 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here are my thoughts from that thread.
______________________________________



Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.


The actual base value should reflect base development. The potential base value should reflect maximum base size with balanced development (adequate dispersal and hardening of facilities). If the actual base value exceeds the potential base value, the additional facilities should be 'brittle'--expensive to add and maintain and easily damaged. The primary meaning should be the size of the air unit that can be supported, but the footprint of heavier aircraft should be greater. A bomber base usually needs fighter support, so the base size should reflect not just more aircraft but more types of aircraft.


Somone on the DEV team once suggested removing the SPS of airbases and replacing it with a second value...the first value would be a representation of the sheer number of airfields in the hex and the second number would be a respresentation of the infrastructure of those fields...perhaps sometime in the future we will see such a system.


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 478
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 10:37:51 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Somone on the DEV team once suggested removing the SPS of airbases and replacing it with a second value...the first value would be a representation of the sheer number of airfields in the hex and the second number would be a respresentation of the infrastructure of those fields...perhaps sometime in the future we will see such a system.


What is 'SPS'?

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 479
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2008 10:45:53 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Somone on the DEV team once suggested removing the SPS of airbases and replacing it with a second value...the first value would be a representation of the sheer number of airfields in the hex and the second number would be a respresentation of the infrastructure of those fields...perhaps sometime in the future we will see such a system.


What is 'SPS'?


The Potential Size...when you look at an airfield you see its size represented as 1(3). The (3) is the SPS.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.344